Anti-armor artillery rounds don't work

[c3k]

Gents,

Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I particularly like ridicule and sarcasm as teaching aids. )

Am I wrong that modern U.S. tube artillery (just like what's represented in CM:SF) has available to it specific anti-armor rounds?

I'm curious because I've set up an artillery training scenario and the 155's and 120 mortars seem to be TOTALLY ineffective against the T-72.

Okay, pile on with your Turms this and your ERA that. However, TOP attack rounds fused for the anti-armor mission should work, shouldn't they?

Can U.S. artillery defeat Soviet armor?

Thanks,

Ken

[Oddball_E8]

if nothing else a direct hit from a 155 should shake something loose... or make the crew puke hehe

[M1A1TC]

155mm would definatly take it out, even a regular round

[winkelried]

there is some guided anti-tank artillery ammo around.

The M898 SADARM is designed for precision engagement of SP howitzers an other lightly armored vehicles. The ammo was used in 2003 by the 3rd Infantry Division it seems. It seems to use a millimeter radar and an infrared telescope.

Laser guided technology was used in the now obsolete M712 Copperhead.

It seems that there is a GPS-aided inertial guidance based ammo under development (XM982 Excalibur).

[Apocalypse 31]

any

F ield

A artillery

G uys

around?

heh.

Can U.S. artillery defeat Soviet armor?

OF course it can!

[c3k]

Hmmm, I'd think so.

I'm just wondering why my artillery support window has me choose between target types (armor, infantry, general) if the GAME does not differentiate effects against those targets.

Of course, I AM still curious as to which U.S. rounds and (sub)munitions can take out T-72's.

Thanks,

Ken

[JasonC]

Modern artillery has 2 methods of killing armor. The next generation plains to blend them both, but right now they are separate.

The first is DP ICM. DP means dual purpose and implies AT as well as AP. ICM means improved conventional munition and basically means "cluster bomb". ICM rounds dispense numerous submunition "bomblets". In the case of DP ICM, these bomblets are each HEAT rather than fragmentation. ICM is not guided, just aimed the usual artillery way. But a battery firing ICM will rapidly saturate its fire for effect area with scads of these little bomblets.

The bomblets are somewhat more effective against lighter armor, because more orientations of the detonating HEAT charges and farther near misses, can be effective. But some bomblets will physically land on tanks in the target zone, and some of those will be in proper orientations to direct their HEAT blast jets into the tank. Only the front armor of MBTs has a chance against this stuff.

The best modern ICM delivery system in the arty is the MLRS system, which can saturate a full grid square (i.e. square kilometer) with the stuff in a short period of time. Vehicles within that zone face kill chances as high as 50%. For battery fires by 155mm, the area affected is smaller, on the order of 200 meters on a side. But within that zone the effect is similar - maybe somewhat lumpier coverage.

Corps level fires of this in the first gulf war were perfectly nasty against Iraqi armor.

The second and more modern method is the terminally guided "smart" round. Laser designated 155 rounds were the older generation of that. Modern versions are GPS guided or have passive terminal IR homing. Terminal IR homing on large mortar rounds with HEAT is particularly effective (high angle helps that homing mechanism, etc).

The next generation is terminally guided submunitions dispensed by airburst, each independently tracking to a "hot" target under the burst. Last I heard, those were still in trials, pretty much. The tech for it exists, it is mostly just a matter of making the sensors small and more robust. When those are out, a single flight of 155 shells coming over will KO anything but the most heavily protected tank platoon with high reliability.

OPFOR versions of this tech are possible, but in practice do not seem to have been fielded. Sweden (Bofors) is willing to sell 120mm terminal IR HEAT mortar rounds to anyone with hard currency. The cost runs 5 figures per round, not a price third world armies are used to paying for ammo. Thankfully.

[Bigduke6]

Back in the old Cold War days we have a munition called "Copperhead" which would fly a 155mm shell down a laser beam. So if the FO painted the target, the shell would whack it.

It was very new technology then but it definately worked every time we were allowed to try it, which was as I recall about once per combat arms battalion per year. Supposedly it was too friggen' expensive to practice with.

From the films and what it did to the hulks, a 155mm HE will indeed kill a tank-sized vehicle, provided it hits it square.

Of course, it really helped if the target stood still and it wasn't misty/rainy as that really seemed to confuse the laser.

Perhaps they have updated Copperhead with a new highspeed/lowdrag name so this generation of troopies can believe it's modern.

[StrykerPSG]

Well, being a former mortar maggot in a prior lifetime.....until making E8, I can tell you that our main mission for armor with any caliber mortar round was suppression. 60/81mm would have very little effect on tanks, other then cracking optics and potentially wounding unbuttoned crew, therefore causing them to button up. However, the 120mm is a different beast and more then able to disable and potentially kill a stationary vehicle. That was about 5 years ago...enter today with the advent of the mortar fire control system, gps and laser designation from the majority of missions called, and you have phenominal accuracy down to 1 meter.

There is also rumor and speculation of a DPICM type for the 120 as well, though there's also been plenty of talk about the supposed swedish round as well. It is safe to say that the 120mm within the game should certainly be portrayed as something more accurate then in their current incarnation, but perhaps that can be addressed in patch 1.08 or so..... :cool:

[Thomm]

That brings up the question:

In CM:SF, I have the ability to choose type of ordnance (General, AT, AP) for mortar-type artillery.

Anti-personel mortar rounds work perfectly fine, but does the distinction between general and AT have any influence on the outcome if I target armored vehicles?

In "Chance Encounter" I point-targeted a group of tanks with 120mm mortars. I don't think I scored any direct hit, but if I did, would the tanks be destroyed?

Best regards,

Thomm

[aka_tom_w]

I have killed BMP's no problem with the Paladin 155 anti Armour round. (in the game)

I am not sure about the 120mm anti armour mortar vs the T72 however.

I think IIRC that I have K-Killed big tanks like T72s with the 155 Paladin Anti Armour rounds, but it was a while ago so I am not sure. (in the game)

[c3k]

Thanks all.

I knew about the DPICM delivered by MLRS. I thought I'd heard about DPICM being developed for the 155 round (albeit with fewer munitions per round for obvious reasons).

I'd also heard the Brits had developed a terminally guided 120mm mortar round with an IR seeker. I was unaware the Swedes had fielded a similar (same?) round.

I wouldn't think a GPS round (Excalibur style) would be too effective against MBT's. 1 meter accuracy is fine, but how many meters wide is a tank? (Rhetorical question guys!) The Copperhead is no longer in service - true?

So, it seems that the way artillery kills tanks from afar is to use cluster munitions (or sub-munitions), or have terminal guidance (limited to IR sensors right now).

Does the U.S. field any of these? If not, will they by the putative timeframe of CM:SF?

Given ALL the above (my posts and the others), does CM:SF portray anti-armor artillery correctly?

As an aside, I have not seen any other damage to the T-72's other than gradual track degradation. This means the bold green "+" becomes an un-bold green "+", then a little (yellow?) "+", then a thin red "x", followed finally by the bold red "x".

What about optics? Or any of the other systems portrayed on the tank?

The rare 155 direct hit will USUALLY result in tank destruction. Any other proximal impact has little result (other than the aforementioned track degradation).

Thanks,

Ken

[Thomm]

Originally posted by c3k:

Given ALL the above (my posts and the others), does CM:SF portray anti-armor artillery correctly?

And my follow-up:

Do 80mm or 120mm anti-tank mortar rounds even exist (as suggested by the respective option in the artillery order menu).

Or what is meant with anti-tank mortar fire. :confused:

Best regards,

Thomm

[Jeff Duquette]

I was reading something just recently about the use of Copperhead in Iraq. I can’t recall the context aside from it was urban combat going on somewhere. In this instance Copperhead wasn’t being employed against armor – rather it was being used as a precision artillery munition against a series of occupied buildings. Copperhead was mentioned specifically as well as the laser designator.

I was also watching something recently on Discovery about artillery training at Ft. Sill. They were interviewing one of the battery commanders of whatever the latest SP 155mm the US Army is using, and he started talking about the ammunition ready racks and where they typically store four (maybe it was 5) copperhead rounds. It’s a rather long projectile relative to other forms of 155m ammunition, which I think was why he was yakking about it’s ready racks. The program was relatively recent – made in perhaps 2005 or 2006. The comments about the Copperhead got me to wondering if the projectile is still being employed.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

STRIX is already quite old technology and in practice its quite low accuracy and limited range prevents most real AT use.

it's good for special cases where you have stationary high value armored targets. e.g. an indentified command vehicle, bridging or breaching vehicles or armor jammed up on a critical and narrow terrain feature.

still, you need to mass fires to have any guaranteed effect.

for greater powers it would be a bit senseless weapon. IMO its use can be justified only by smaller nations with specific terrain features.

[c3k]

urc,

Is STRIX the guided 120mm projectile?

Regards,

Ken

[MarkEzra]

Hi Ken: You said: "I'm curious because I've set up an artillery training scenario and the 155's and 120 mortars seem to be TOTALLY ineffective against the T-72."

I just wanted to let you know I am play testing a scen with Blue 120 mm mortar using anti-armour against a T72...top of the line Totally destroyed it in one minute...It can be done.

[c3k]

Figures!!

I've played it about 3-4 times. All I did was assign one of each type of battery to a single HQ ensconced in a great (hidden) spotting position.

All I USUALLY see is some track degradation. I have seen a RARE (given the number of rounds fired and the closeness of the impacts) kill.

So I guess my use of "TOTALLY" is a bit of hyperbole. Sorry. I should've said "MOSTLY".

Thanks!

Ken

[John Kettler]

Where to begin?

SADARM kills tanks very nicely, being loaded with the same Skeet submunition found in the deadly Sensor-Fuzed Weapon used in OIF. Kill mechanism is an EFF through the thin top armor, generally striking either turret or engine compartment. We analyzed the Skeet when I was at Hughes, and I've seen the test footage. It's also been shown on Future Weapons being deployed via SFW.

The Swedish guided 120mm mortar round is called Strix. As for the Russians, there are lots of PGMs for artillery. See enclosed two page list for chilling details. I distinctly remember how we were preening ourselves over Copperhead in 1985--until we got a threat briefing which said the Russians had not one laser guided projectile, but whole families for different cannon and mortars.

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=254&cattitle=Munitions

Should further point out that we have no monopoly on sensor-fuzed weapons. See, for example, the 9M217 here. Something to think about!

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=254&linkid=2367

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

c3k - deployment lags tech in this area, because of expense and the perception that cheaper and more effective weapons are available.

The standard thing US field artillery uses for armored targets if DP ICM. That includes both 155mm batteries and MLRS. They have some GPS guided rounds with high 4 figure price tags, which are used for precision fires, but typically at building targets, where the GPS coordinate can be known precisely and isn't going to change.

For MLRS, the next generation weapon dispenses 13 smart submunitions (called BAT) that independently seek armor. But it remains in trials due to bugs, failures to acquire etc. For 155mm, there are independent smart submunition rounds, but they dispense only 2 submunitions each and average slightly under 1 hit per pair fired, even in trials. The price tag is still high, high 4 figures.

For comparison, a JDAM kit bomb costs only $20,000 (a quarter what the GPS 155 round costs) and packs many times the punch of a GPS artillery shell.

DP ICM is economic to use at current prices, so it is the standard thing. GPS rounds are kept in case the local commander wants them, but a standard anti armor mission would fire DP ICM and try to saturate the area with HEAT submunitions.

As for the Brit and Swede thing, the Brits developed smart 81mm mortar ammo, but did not field it because they considered it too expensive for the firepower gain with that small a round. Bofors made the smart 120 rounds and they are fielded by the Swedish army. Then in 2000, BAE bought Bofors, so now the company making those is (indirectly, through a Swedish brand subsidiary) British owned.

I hope this helps.

[Thomm]

SO what does "Target Armor" mean in terms of 80mm and 120mm mortars????!??

Best regards,

Thomm

[undead reindeer cavalry]

STRIX is used also by Finns and Swiss. the cost of STRIX is a bit ridiculous, but if you look at the terrain of northern Sweden or eastern Finland, not to mention that of Switzerland, you can see how it can be highly valuable asset.

[c3k]

JasonC,

Thank you. I knew the British had developed SOME sort of guided mortar round. I'd forgotten which caliber.

So, DP ICM bomblets get dispensed via airburst and individualy seek IR targets.

Shouldn't CM:SF therefore NOT have impact craters from 155's? Instead, there should be airbursts followed by multiple smaller airbursts as the DP ICM munitions acquire targets and detonate (they detonate several meters over their targets, true?)?

That would lead me to think the damage model versus vehicles should be MUCH more varied. I would think outright kills, crewmember injuries/deaths, LOTS of engines getting knocked out, some fire control/gun barrel/sighing issues (rarely), etc.

Instead, right now all we have are contact fused impact craters which can cause track degradation and the rare direct impact which sometimes causes catastrophic kills.

Thank you,

Ken

[c3k]

Gents,

Thanks. I've done a little bit of web-browsing and come up with the following information regarding U.S. 155mm artillery ammunition.

There are currently two types rounds of interest here: the M483 and the M864. They seem to be quite similar (to me) except the M864 gives up some submunitions capacity in order to gain base-bleed capability so the "mother" round can gain greater range.

Here's what globalsecurity.com has to say about the M483:

The M483A1 delivers 88 dual purpose anti-material and anti-personnel grenades - the M42 (quantity 64/projo) and M46 (quantity 24/projo). The M46s are located at the base of the projectile and are heavier/thicker and have a smooth interior surface that enables it to withstand the shock of firing and set back. The M42 grenades are scored for greater fragmentation and are place to the front of the M46 grenades. The submissions have a shaped charge warhead that penetrates 2.75 inches of homogeneous armor. Antipersonnel effects are obtained by fragmentation of the submissions body."

As for the M864:

"The M864 projectile is a dual-purpose ICM projectile that incorporates base burn technology to increase its range. The projectile is capable of delivering 24 M46 and 48 M42 dual-purpose anti-materiel/anti-personnel grenades at ranges out to 29 kilometers."

So, the M42 submunition (grenade) is optimized for fragmentation while the M46 is anti-armor.

EACH round (M483 & M864) carries 24 M46 anti-armor submunitions. How many of those can reasonably be expected to hit a tank? Double hits, misses, ineffective hits, etc.

I see references to the M77 grenade (that being the preferred term for these bomblets) as well as the M42, M46 and the newer(?) M80 and M85. It seems that a new fuze (M223) is being developed for the M80/85 to greatly reduce the unacceptably high level of duds (1-5% in Iraq in 2003).

My remaining questions:

What are the M80 and M85 capable of?

What is the footprint of coverage for a 155mm round using the M80/M85 (I assume these are the new DPICM rounds??)?

Withing that footprint, what are the expected effects?

Will a massive shower of fragmentation bomblets rip off antennas, ruin optics, jam ring mounted machineguns, destroy smoke dischargers, ruin ERA blocks, or otherwise rain damage upon an AFV such that the stats tracked in CM:SF's damage model needs to be adjusted?

How will anti-armor bomblets REALLY kill AFV's? Is it all engine directed? Crew compartment? Etc.

Thanks to all who have real knowledge on these matters.

Regards,

Ken

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

SO what does "Target Armor" mean in terms of 80mm and 120mm mortars????!??

Is there any chance for an official answer?

Best regards,

Thomm